6 ms·

> If I refuse to allow it to be used to support another life, that is my choice. You're missing the point that your choice to have sex created the fetus/life i

> If I refuse to allow it to be used to support another life, that is my choice. You're missing the point that your choice to have sex created the fetus/life in the first place. That changes the debate and invalidates all of your examples.

jimkleiber 4y ago
Depends on the law as some laws forbid abortion even in rape and incest, which I'd argue are strong examples of someone specifically not choosing to have sex.
- camhart 4y ago
  Very true, but that accounts for less than 0.5% of abortions. For a vast majority of abortions, they made the choice.
- tzs 4y ago
  I don't understand why it is almost always "rape and incest", both on the part of people considering exceptions when they ban abortion or people trying to get exceptions into someone else's abortion ban. Incest can be nonconsensual, in which it was also rape and so would be covered under a rape exception. Incest can also be consensual, in which case what is the logic to treating conception by incest any different than any other circumstances of conception?
  - jimkleiber 4y ago
    Fair point, I meant more for the nonconsensual aspect, although I'm unsure if incest is illegal even if consensual, I guess it might depend on the jurisdiction, at which point eve if it were two people consenting, it may not legally be considered consensual, similar to how people under a certain age have no legal ability to consent.
  - AlexandrB 4y ago
    I think there are a few problems. First, as with statutory rape, I think incest is often treated as de-facto coercive - e.g. could you say "no" to your dad if you depend on him for food/shelter/clothing? Second, rape often requires the victim to accuse the rapist of such - which is probably less likely when family is involved. Finally, incest carries increased risks of abnormalities in the child, which makes the case for aborting to prevent suffering of the child stronger.
hackyhacky 4y ago
This is really the crux of the matter. Thank you for bringing it up. The issue for the pro-life is crowd is not about life, and it never has been. The real goal is socially repressive puritanism and a desire to punish women for choosing to have sex. By your logic, if a person drives a car and has a crash, the doctor should refuse to treat their injuries, because after all, it was their choice to drive.
- corrral 4y ago
  > By your logic, if a person drives a car and has a crash, the doctor should refuse to treat their injuries, because after all, it was their choice to drive. I'm pro-choice but this does not follow from that logic, which is that choosing to take action that might result in another living thing temporarily being dependent on you to survive, does come with at least some level of obligation not to rip that support away such that they die. Your analogy doesn't address that at all.
  - hackyhacky 4y ago
    First of all, as others have pointed out, laws that prohibit abortion even in cases of rape and incest overlook the "choosing to take action" part. In that case, a person is pregnant without ever having made a choice to engage in any action at all. Moreover, "living thing" is the key word here. A fetus IS a living thing. So is a cow, a cockroach, an intestinal parasite. We kill those, and we support industries that kill them, without thinking. And while there are extremists who support protecting a broader segment of "life," that is not what the pro-life movement is about. If I breed cows for a living, I have a legal and ethical right to kill those cows. And if I have a baby attached to my uterus, I should have the legal right to do what I want.
    - camhart 4y ago
      If you were raped, and it wasn't your choice, then yes I agree there's an argument that you should have the legal right to decide for yourself what the moral/ethical thing to do is. But if you instead put the baby in your uterus, of your own free will and choice, you are responsible for it. Rape accounts for less than 0.5% of abortions. While it's important to consider, it doesn't remove the responsibility in the other 99.5%.
taco_emoji 4y ago
> That changes the debate and invalidates all of your examples Why? In what way?
colinmhayes 4y ago
This doesn't matter though. If you drive recklessly and get in an accident where the victim needs you to donate a kidney you aren't forced to give up your kidney. Fault has never overiden our right to bodily autonomy.

jimkleiber 4y ago

Depends on the law as some laws forbid abortion even in rape and incest, which I'd argue are strong examples of someone specifically not choosing to have sex.

camhart 4y ago
Very true, but that accounts for less than 0.5% of abortions. For a vast majority of abortions, they made the choice.
tzs 4y ago
I don't understand why it is almost always "rape and incest", both on the part of people considering exceptions when they ban abortion or people trying to get exceptions into someone else's abortion ban. Incest can be nonconsensual, in which it was also rape and so would be covered under a rape exception. Incest can also be consensual, in which case what is the logic to treating conception by incest any different than any other circumstances of conception?
- jimkleiber 4y ago
  Fair point, I meant more for the nonconsensual aspect, although I'm unsure if incest is illegal even if consensual, I guess it might depend on the jurisdiction, at which point eve if it were two people consenting, it may not legally be considered consensual, similar to how people under a certain age have no legal ability to consent.
- AlexandrB 4y ago
  I think there are a few problems. First, as with statutory rape, I think incest is often treated as de-facto coercive - e.g. could you say "no" to your dad if you depend on him for food/shelter/clothing? Second, rape often requires the victim to accuse the rapist of such - which is probably less likely when family is involved. Finally, incest carries increased risks of abnormalities in the child, which makes the case for aborting to prevent suffering of the child stronger.

hackyhacky 4y ago

This is really the crux of the matter. Thank you for bringing it up. The issue for the pro-life is crowd is not about life, and it never has been. The real goal is socially repressive puritanism and a desire to punish women for choosing to have sex. By your logic, if a person drives a car and has a crash, the doctor should refuse to treat their injuries, because after all, it was their choice to drive.

corrral 4y ago
> By your logic, if a person drives a car and has a crash, the doctor should refuse to treat their injuries, because after all, it was their choice to drive. I'm pro-choice but this does not follow from that logic, which is that choosing to take action that might result in another living thing temporarily being dependent on you to survive, does come with at least some level of obligation not to rip that support away such that they die. Your analogy doesn't address that at all.
- hackyhacky 4y ago
  First of all, as others have pointed out, laws that prohibit abortion even in cases of rape and incest overlook the "choosing to take action" part. In that case, a person is pregnant without ever having made a choice to engage in any action at all. Moreover, "living thing" is the key word here. A fetus IS a living thing. So is a cow, a cockroach, an intestinal parasite. We kill those, and we support industries that kill them, without thinking. And while there are extremists who support protecting a broader segment of "life," that is not what the pro-life movement is about. If I breed cows for a living, I have a legal and ethical right to kill those cows. And if I have a baby attached to my uterus, I should have the legal right to do what I want.
  - camhart 4y ago
    If you were raped, and it wasn't your choice, then yes I agree there's an argument that you should have the legal right to decide for yourself what the moral/ethical thing to do is. But if you instead put the baby in your uterus, of your own free will and choice, you are responsible for it. Rape accounts for less than 0.5% of abortions. While it's important to consider, it doesn't remove the responsibility in the other 99.5%.

taco_emoji 4y ago

> That changes the debate and invalidates all of your examples Why? In what way?

colinmhayes 4y ago

This doesn't matter though. If you drive recklessly and get in an accident where the victim needs you to donate a kidney you aren't forced to give up your kidney. Fault has never overiden our right to bodily autonomy.